Dissertations UMSL Graduate Works
8-4-2016
Conceptualizing and Validating the Character
Virtues Index (CVI)
Mark Allen Liston
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Follow this and additional works at:https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation Part of theEducation Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended Citation
Liston, Mark Allen, "Conceptualizing and Validating the Character Virtues Index (CVI)" (2016). Dissertations. 94.
(CVI)
Mark A. Liston
Ed.S., Counseling Psychology, Pittsburg State (KS) University, 1994
M.Div., Pastoral Care, Oral Roberts University, 1981
B.A., Theology, Oral Roberts University, 1976
A Dissertation Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of
Missouri - St. Louis
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Education with an emphasis in Educational
Psychology
July, 2014
Dissertation Committee
Marvin Berkowitz, Ph.D., Chair
Melinda Bier, Ph.D.
Cody Ding, Ph.D.
Thomas Lickona, Ph.D.
Conceptualizing and Validating the Character Virtues Index
(CVI)
By Mark Liston
In Partial Fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education The Department of Educational Psychology
in the College of Education University of Missouri - St. Louis
Copyright © 2014 by Mark Allen Liston All Rights Reserved
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ST. LOUIS THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
Preliminary Approval of Dissertation and Oral Defense (D-6)
One copy of the dissertation, certified as complete and provisionally acceptable to the committee, will be submitted to the Graduate school at least six weeks prior to
commencement. The Dean of the Graduate School may assign the dissertation to other readers on or off the campus, or seek other advice. The final examination committee will consist of all members of the dissertation committee and such other members of the graduate faculty as seem appropriate.
STUDENT NAME: Mark Liston STUDENT NUMBER 18053767 ORAL DEFENSE DATE: July 18, 2014 DEGREE: Ph.D. I understand that my student account balance must be zero before I submit my final copies of my dissertation.
________________________________________ ______________
Student Signature Date
DISSERTATION ADVISOR: ________________________________________ ______________ Signature Date OTHER ENDORSEMENTS: ___________________________________ _________________________________ Date Date ___________________________________ _________________________________ Date Date ___________________________________ _________________________________ Date Date ___________________________________ _________________________________ Chair/Dir. of Graduate Studies Date Graduate Dean Date
ABSTRACT
Talent often enables achievement but character sustains success, defines an individual’s reputation, and is a primary indicator of happiness and flourishing
(Baumeister, 2012; Berkowitz & Bustamante, 2013; Damon, 1988; Diener & Tov, 2007; Lerner et al., 2005; Park & Peterson, 2006a; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Knowing one’s level of character strength could provide an objective, robust, and reliable indicator of present and future well-being (Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Park & Peterson, 2006b; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). More specifically, if character strengths can be identified, defined, and measured, one’s own “signature strengths” (greatest character strengths; Park & Peterson, 2007) could be purposefully exercised while one’s “character challenges” (weaker or more variable character traits; Liston, 2007) could be fortified (Baumeister, 2012).
This study’s research question is: Can a valid, reliable measure of
multi-dimensional adolescent character be developed? Its goals were:
1. To construct a grid of trait lists by experts in Positive Psychology (PP; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), Character Education (CE; Bulach, 1996; Davidson & Lickona, 2005; Josephson, 2011), and Positive Youth Development (PYD; Lerner et al., 2005) to create the Character Taxonomy as a conceptual basis;
2. To construct the Character Virtues Index (CVI) as a brief measure of the
Character Taxonomy’s traits; and
The Character Taxonomy produced 18 traits that were hypothesized to cover the various dimensions of character. Two CVI field tests involving over 1000 middle school students produced a reliable measure with 11 factors for a validation study.
The validation study involved 784 Midwest US middle school students. Average administration time was 17 minutes. Cronbach’s alpha for the 55 CVI items was .944 and test/retest was correlated at .720 indicating CVI is a reliable measure (Diener, Inglehart, & Tay, 2012; Gay & Airasian, 2000).
Exploratory factor analysis produced all 11 hypothesized factors with Eigenvalues >1.0 and explained 58.5% of the total variance. Coefficient alphas for ten of the eleven were >.7. Traits defined as Courage, Kindness, and Peace showed unique
conceptualization and differentiating elements that could inform and contribute to character research.
The measure by which CVI was compared for validation was a collection of 52 items from the 96-item VIA Youth Survey (Park & Peterson, 2006b) that were
conceptually closest to CVI’s 11 factors. Correlation was .851. Paired sample correlations were significant, ranging from .405-.806.
The 52 items from the 96-item VIA Youth Survey had not been subjected to reliability and validity measurement. A post-hoc EFA of its data showed strong reliability, produced 11 factors (ten that were identical to CVI factors), and had acceptable structural coefficients.
When independent EFAs of CVI and the 52 items from the 96-item VIA Youth
measure contain even more than 11 distinct, interpretable factors? Could items intending to measure traits defined by differing fields (PP, CE, and PYD) support the same factor? To answer these questions, a third post-hoc study combined all CVI and VIA-YS items for a conjoint EFA. Data from the 107 items revealed 19 factors with Eigenvalues > 1.0 accounting for 63.4% of variance. Eighteen factors were easily interpretable and sixteen had items that created >.7 Coefficient alphas. 80% of items factored. CVI items factored together with and independent from VIA items. Future studies could add traits deemed essential to make CVI a comprehensive measure of character.
Limitations involve the need for future studies (1) to improve factoring, discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity, (2) to conduct confirmatory factor analysis for improved conceptualization, and (3) to be experimentally designed to
indicate longitudinal outcomes that determine CVI’s ability to measure character growth. It is hoped that the Character Taxonomy and CVI will fuel scientific research regarding Character Education, provide educators with a means of evaluating individual student character strength and growth, and encourage quality CE program development and evaluation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Conceptualizing and Validating the Character Virtues Index (CVI)
Title Page 1
Copyright Page 3
Preliminary Approval of Dissertation and Oral Defense 4
Abstract 5
Table of Contents 8
Appendices 12
List of Figures and Tables 13
Acknowledgements 16
Dedication 17
Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review 18
(Untitled) Introduction 18
Purpose 24
Literature Review 25
Concepts of Character 26
Measuring Character 42
Lessons from the VIA Strengths Survey 56 Significance and Research Question 68
Assumptions 71
Delimitations 74
Chapter Two: Methodology of Developing a Measure 75
Introduction 75
Constructing a Taxonomy of Character 77 Taxonomies of Character and Their Criteria
Criteria for Inclusion Use of Terms
Six lists of character traits
The Character Taxonomy (CT) 93
Frequency of Traits Analysis
Conclusions regarding the Frequency Grid
Character Taxonomy and the Measure’s Concept
Character Taxonomy Results: Hypothesized Categories and Traits
Development of the Character Virtues Index (CVI) 105 Initial Concept, Goal, Content, and Scope
Description
Possible Threats to Validity
Field Test One 111
Instrument Construction and Hypotheses Reliability and Validity Measures
Participating Sites and Students Data Collection Procedures Data Analysis
Limitations
Field Test Two 122
Instrument Revisions and Additions Participating Sites and Students
Data Collection Procedures and Analysis CVI 2 EFA
YFS and convergent validity Limitations
CVI Validation Study 141
Instrument Revisions Research Design Participants
Data Collection Procedures Data Analysis
Limitations
Chapter Three: Data Analysis 155
Introduction
Description of Procedures Analysis
Descriptive scores Reliability
Exploratory factor analysis Factors and their names
Revised factor definitions Item quality
Factor means
Inter-scale correlations
Post-hoc study of 52 VIA Youth Survey items 164 Correlation with 52 VIA Youth Survey items 171
Additional items 175
Post-hoc EFA of Wisdom, Honesty, and Humility 177 Post-hoc Study of All CVI and 96-Item VIA Youth Survey Items 179
Conclusions 186
Chapter Four: Data Interpretation 191
Is CVI Valid and Reliable? 191
Reliability Trait means
Exploratory Factor Analysis 192 Factoring
Factor interpretation Revised definitions. Factor differentiation
Post-hoc EFA of Wisdom, Honesty, and Humility Item interpretation
EFA and conceptual alignments 211 The significant constructs in the Character Taxonomy
Positive Youth Development
Constructs of Adolescent Flourishing Categorization conclusions
VIA post-hoc study 216
Reliability
Exploratory Factor Analysis Conclusions
Convergent validity measured by correlation 223 Strength
Peace and Self-regulation Significance
Conclusions
Discussion 228
Character Taxonomy and CVI traits Character Taxonomy significance
Post-hoc Study of the combined CVI and VIA items Trait conceptualization and item construction Uses for the Character Virtues Index
Limitations 241
Future Research 245
References 252
Appendixes 272
Measures and Pattern Matrices: 272 Appendix A: Character Growth Measure – MS
Appendix B: Character Growth Measure – MS Pattern Matrix Appendix C: Character Growth Measure – HS
Appendix D: Character Growth Measure – HS Pattern Matrix Appendix E: Character Virtues Index 2 (CVI 2)
Appendix F: CVI 2 Pattern Matrix
Appendix G: Character Virtues Index 3 (CVI 3) Appendix H: CVI 3 Pattern Matrix
Because of its copyright, VIA Youth Survey items could not be included. For information, please contact Kelly at [email protected] and see an article at
http://www.viacharacter.org/www/en-us/research/psychometricdatayouthsurvey.aspx
School Documents: 303
Appendix I: Parent Consent Letter
Appendix J: Sample of CVI Data Report Given to Schools
Post-hoc Exploratory Factor Analyses: 324 Appendix K: Pattern Matrix of 52 VIA Youth Survey items
Appendix L: Pattern Matrix of Wisdom, Honesty, and Humility Appendix M: Pattern Matrix of All CVI and VIA Youth Survey Items
List of Figures and Tables
Table 1.1. School Demographics 59
Table 1.2. School Mean Scores 60
Table 1.3. Group Mean Scores 61
Table 2.1: Criteria for Inclusion 77 Table 2.2: Positive Psychology's Construct 91 Table 2.3: Character Taxonomy Frequency Grid 95 Table 2.4: Character Categories 101 Table 2.5. The Character Taxonomy 103 Table 2.6: Factors with Their Coefficient Alphas 113 Table 2.7: CGM Categories and Factors 116 Table 2.8. CGM Factors and Correlating Youth Flourishing Scale Items 119 Table 2.9. CVI 2 Factors, Items, and Strength 127 Table 2.10. Comparison of CGM Factors to CVI 2 Factors 136 Table 2.11. Factors Containing Items Designed for Other Traits 138 Table 2.12. Hypothesized Categories and Traits Compared to Factors 140 Table 2.13. CVI and YFS Correlations 141 Table 2.14. Definitions of CVI Factors 147 Table 2.15. 2013 Demographic Data for Participating School 151 Figure 1. Distribution of CVI Mean Scores 158 Table 3.1. CVI Factors with Items and Reliability 160 Table 3.2. CVI Factors and Item Means 164
Table 3.3. Correlations of CVI’s 11 Factors 165 Table 3.4. EFA Results of 52 Items from the 96-Item VIA Youth Survey 166 Table 3.5. Rank Order of Explained Variance in CVI and VIA Factors 170 Table 3.6. Correlations of CVI Factors to Each VIA Subscale 173 Table 3.7. EFA of 3 Hypothesized Traits: Wisdom, Honesty, & Humility 178 Table 3.8. Post-hoc Study of CVI and VIA Youth Survey Items 181 Table 4.1. Revised Definitions of CVI Factors 201 Table 4.2. Character Categories and CVI Traits 212 Table 4.3. PYD’s Internal Assets and Associated CVI Traits 214 Table 4.4. Constructs of Adolescent Flourishing and CVI Traits 216 Table 4.5. The Character Taxonomy Compared to the 11 CVI Factors 230 Table 4.6. The Character Taxonomy 2014 234
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Perhaps one must have grandiose delusions to take on a study such as this. To succeed, one certainly must possess enough realism to seek help from those who actually know what they are doing. For their expert opinion, acknowledgement and deep gratitude go to:
All who developed Positive Psychology, Positive Youth Development, and Character Education
Neil Mayerson, President, and Ryan Niemic of Values In Action; Wade Rowatt, Baylor University, on Humility;
Punky Heppner, University of Missouri, on Insight/problem solving;
Angela Duckworth, University of Pennsylvania, on Perseverance and Peace; Robert Biswas-Diener, Portland State University, on Courage;
Hal Urban, Character Education speaker
Alesha Serozynski, Notre Dame, on measure construction
Rich Lerner of Tufts University and researcher for Positive Youth Development Shane Lopez, University of Kansas
Clete Bulach William Huitt
Secondary and elementary educators/administrators: Mike Baugus, Chelsea Watson, Craig Maxey, Nathan Tyson, and Mary Johnston of the Parkway ISD in St. Louis, MO; Kristen Pelster of Fox ISD, Arnold, MO; Jenifer Cryer, Tiffany Sanny, and Alma Stipp of Neosho, MO ISD; and Jim Kimbrough, Joplin, MO ISD
In addition, the dissertation committee for this project must be included as experts who contribute mightily to CVI’s validity: Dr. Marvin Berkowitz, Dr. Mindy Bier, and Dr. Cody Ding of University of Missouri-St. Louis and Dr. Tom Lickona, State University of New York.
DEDICATION
To the perfect example of human character, my Lord and King, Jesus Christ And to all the children, young or old, whom He loves and for whom He sacrificed His well-being to establish ours.
Conceptualizing and Validating the Character Virtues Index
(CVI)
Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review
“What is the secret of happiness? What must we do to flourish in life?” From the teacher at the temple, mosque, or church to the iconic guru on the distant mountaintop to the philosopher's study and the researcher's lab, humankind has sought the elusive (and perhaps illusive) answers to these questions. Philosophers, psychologists, social commentators, and spiritual and cultural leaders invest their resources to identify, understand, and explain what enriches life and how to experience those riches (Park & Peterson, 2009). Parents want to better their children’s lives (Hirsh-Pasek & Michnick Golinkoff, 2004). Governmental, educational, spiritual, and cultural leaders attempt to provide those they serve with the freedom, knowledge, and opportunity to experience their own answers (Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011).
Perhaps all attempt to find happiness by the manner in which they conduct their lives both personally (what they choose to value, believe, do, and accomplish) and relationally (with whom they choose to associate and how they live with and treat them) (Berkowitz, 2004; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Descriptors of this lifestyle include choices, motivations, values, beliefs, ethics, virtues, morality or morals, or what this study refers to as character (Berkowitz, 2004; Lickona, 2000; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The field of Positive Psychology (PP) was launched to answer this question. As will be detailed later, its research found that character strengths are a primary source of variance in measures of achievement, well-being, and life satisfaction (Duckworth & Seligman, 2007; Pavot & Diener, 2013; Snyder & Lopez, 2007). This was true across cultures and developmental stages (Park & Peterson, 2006a; Steen, Kachorek, & Peterson, 2003; Weber & Ruch, 2012; Williams, 2000).
The concept of character has been discussed, studied, and promoted universally throughout history (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). From the days of ancient Greece to present day, however, a universal definition and taxonomy of character has not been agreed upon (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). As a result, few means of measuring character comprehensively exist (Leffert et al., 1998; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009).
The difficulties in measuring a multidimensional concept (character) by compiling its multidimensional components (traits, virtues, or strengths) raise
innumerable conceptual and metric difficulties (Diener et al., 2010; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Kenny, & Kashy, 1992; Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Trochim, 2006). The field of personality with its varied traits has produced a strong consensus regarding its structure (Allport, 1936; Cawley, Martin, & Johnson, 2000; McCrae & Costa, 2003). This shows the task should be possible At this time, measuring an individual’s multi-dimensional character growth cannot be done due to the lack of a unified construct and a valid, reliable measure of character (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009; USDE, 2007).
Why is such measurement important? Conceptually, if character defines an individual and is a primary indicator of happiness and flourishing, knowing one’s level of character strength would provide an objective, robust, and reliable indicator of present and future well-being (Berkowitz, 2014; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Park & Peterson, 2006a; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). More specifically, if character strengths can be identified, defined, and measured, one’s own “signature strengths” (greatest character strengths; Park & Peterson, 2007) and “character challenges” (less noticeable or robust character strengths; Liston, 2007) could be isolated, further developed, and
purposefully exercised (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Liston, 2011; USDE, 2007).
The inability to identify or measure an individual’s character strengths or development may have had a powerful effect on modern education in the US.
Historically, character education (CE) has been highly valued in America (Nucci, 2008; Park & Peterson, 2009; Vessels & Huitt, 2005; WWC, 2006; Williams, 2000). In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, character was viewed on par with academics as priorities for education (McClellan, 1999).
Since then, academic achievement has gained ascendency. This is indicated by the singular United States Department of Education (USDE) mission as described on their website: “ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access” (USDE, 2013a). This goal is commendable in its forthrightness and modernity and certainly reflects the effects of the most influential educational legislation of the past 30 years: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2011). This
educational initiative raised the Clinton annual budget for CE from $8 million to $25 million, a significant enhancement to the field. The greater impact of NCLB was on academic accountability. As may be heard at any US educational conference or
teacher’s lounge, the mission of the USDE is extremely complex and the goals of NCLB are difficult to achieve given US social conditions affecting students’ ability to learn (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2011; Milson, 2003).
Many educators assert that “student achievement” and “education excellence” (USDE, 2013a) are obtainable only under certain physical, psychological, social, and environmental conditions (Bowers et al., 2010; Elias et al., 1997; Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Howard, Berkowitz, & Schaeffer, 2004; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Maslow, 1943; McClellan, 1999). Included conditions are when (a) schools are “safe, caring, and respectful” (CEP, 2013, n.p.; Bowers et al., 2010; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000), (b) the adult educational community models good character in their treatment of students (Bowers et al., 2010; Elias et al., 1997; Lickona & Davidson, 2005; McClellan, 1999) and (c) students value their education, teachers, school, fellow students, and themselves (Bowers et al., 2010; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Lickona, 2004; McClellan, 1999). Encouraging and enabling such values in both professional and student cultures is a major role of CE (Lickona & Davidson, 2005).
Despite the universal acknowledgement of character as central to personal and academic success, CE is a secondary or tertiary consideration if it is recognized at all in the vast majority of US schools (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2011; McClellan, 1999). Compared to academic subjects, CE is practically non-existent in many educators' minds or barely registers in their awareness (Milson, 2003; White, 2009).
A serious setback to CE was the decision in early 2009 by the United States Department of Education (USDE) to defund CE as a budgetary item (2012). Even grants awarded through 2009 and 2010 were cancelled and recipients who had been promised these funds found those promises broken (Bier, personal conversation, March 19, 2013; USDE, 2012). The 2012 USDE budget and the proposed 2014 USDE budget show CE as an “unfunded authorization” (USDE, 2012; USDE, 2013).
How and why was this done? Hours of searching on the USDE website and email inquiries to the USDE and US Senator Roy Blunt (Republican from Missouri) provided no answers.
These facts could indicate that today CE in the US is beginning a state of decline. What are the causes of the federal cutoff of funding and possible decline in CE emphasis? Many theories could be discussed: Competition from other education sectors and
priorities, past underfunding, disinterest/apathy, conflict regarding public education's role in teaching morality, litigation concerns due to “separation of church and state,”
disagreement as to what morals to teach, lack of undergraduate or graduate teacher preparation in CE, and of course, the emphasis on test scores due to NCLB (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2011; McClellan, 1999; Milson, 2003; USDE, 2007, 2012, 2013b; White, 2009).
A few related possibilities are (a) the relative dearth of scientific, valid research studies regarding character development (compared to academic fields) (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Park & Peterson, 2009; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009; USDE, 2007); (b) the poor performance of CE programs in existing studies (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Person, Moiduddin,
Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009; USDE, 2007); (c) the lack of a unified, understandable construct of character (Huitt et al, 2009; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009; Seligman & Peterson, 2005); and (d) the absence of a valid, reliable measure of comprehensive character growth (Duckworth, Quinn & Tsukayama, 2011; Huitt et al, 2009; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, &
Malone, 2009; Steen, Kachorek & Peterson, 2003; Vessels & Huitt, 2005; WWC, 2006). Program, teacher, school, and individual effectiveness in academic subjects can be measured with ease and precision when compared to CE. This has been true for many years but the gap has increased dramatically in recent years due largely to the federal emphasis of NCLB (Duckworth, Quinn & Tsukayama, 2011; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009).
CE research, development, and measurement is pitiful in comparison to that of academics. In their landmark study, What Works in Character Education, Berkowitz & Bier (2006) state, “Given the relatively nascent nature of research in character education, there is much that has not yet been studied” (p. 3).
What would happen to student character development if it became the focus of an emphasis similar to NCLB? Immediately, funding would be available to address
neglected issues if not remedy the above deficits. Research, program and professional development in CE would multiply. Soon students would receive training in this essential foundation for well-being (Diener, Inglehart, & Tay, 2012; Duckworth & Seligman, 2007; Eid & Diener, 2004; Elias et al., 1997; Gilman, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2000; Homiak, 2011; Howard, Berkowitz, & Schaeffer, 2004; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000).
If character is as essential to human well-being and relationships as has been taught from antiquity, measuring both character strength and growth would seem at least as important as scoring math or language (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Yet the field of CE cannot idle, hoping and waiting for politicians to take up their cause. Among other proactivity, CE must devote resources to develop conceptualization and measurement of character if it hopes to re-enter US education's priorities and funding (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Huitt et al, 2009; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009; WWC, 2006).
Purpose
The researcher’s initial purpose was to evaluate an adolescent CE program he created. When no measure was found for this task, his purpose became the development a valid, reliable measure of comprehensive adolescent character growth based on a character taxonomy. In this pursuit, two obstacles prevented this purpose: 1) Unlike the field of personality theory that has an agreed-upon conceptualization, character
development is devoid of this description of elements that would define a measure as “comprehensive;” and 2) it became clear that the longitudinal experimental study required to test growth required a valid, reliable instrument. The purpose was revised again:
This dissertation study will develop a valid, reliable measure of multidimensional adolescent character conceptualized through construction of a character taxonomy [called the Character Taxonomy (CT)]. The CT will provide de facto the initial working
definition of multidimensional character upon which the measure [called the Character
Virtues Index (CVI)] will be developed.
It is hoped that the CVI and the CT will fuel scientific research regarding Character Education, provide educators with a means of evaluating individual student character strength and growth, and encourage quality CE program development and evaluation.
Literature Review
Three areas will be reviewed: Concepts of character, measuring character, and lessons learned from the Signature Strengths Assessment-Youth field test.
Concepts of Character. Historically and recently, character has proven difficult
to define and conceptualize (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Benjamin Franklin said in The
Autobiography (1961), “In the various enumerations of the moral virtues I had met with
in my reading, I found the catalog more or less numerous, as different writers included more or fewer ideas under the same name” (p. 116). Peterson, Seligman, and their contributors who wrote Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV; 2004) drafted
psychology’s most complete construct of virtue and “character strengths” (chapters 2 & 3). What follows in this section is an abbreviated description of their work with additions from other sources.
Ancient concepts of character. Perhaps the earliest writing specifically
both Judaism and Christianity. Arguably the best known moral instruction are the Ten Commandments (Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 1-17) that provide the foundation of the Jewish religion (Solomon, 2009). These commands were written by YAHWEH on two stone tablets and given to Moses around the twelfth century B.C.E. They involve not only religious practice but define social and moral behavior (Solomon, 2009).
These religious writings are the foundation of Western law (Dershowitz, 2001; Green, 1999) and seem to articulate universal morals understood and acknowledged by the majority of religions and cultures worldwide (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The central articulation of the Jewish religion is contained in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, called the Shema, and is traditionally placed on the doorframe of Jewish homes. Every parent is encouraged in strong, specific terms not only to practice these commandments but to impress them upon their children.
Written in the 8th century B.C.E. by Israel’s third king, the Wisdom and Proverbs
of Solomon is sacred to both Jews and Christians. Solomon was known as the wisest man
and one of the wealthiest in the world (1 Kings 10:1ff). Kings and queens of numerous nations came to hear his wisdom and see the temple and his riches (1 Kings 10:14-29).
The purpose of the book of Proverbs is stated in its opening verses: “…for attaining wisdom and discipline [instruction, correction];
for understanding words of insight;
for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair; for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young…” (Proverbs 1:2-4, New International Version).
All the italicized words in this passage have been defined in current literature as a character trait or correlate to character and its instruction (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). These examples illustrate the centrality of character education in Judaism.
China in the sixth century B.C.E. had two religious traditions that taught virtue: Confucianism and Taoism. Confucian scholars identify five central virtues: Love, justice, etiquette, wisdom, and truthfulness (Cleary, 1992). Taoism teaches self-regulation, humanity, justice, propriety, and wisdom, but only if they arise from its cardinal virtue: Spontaneity or naturalness (Cleary, 1991).
Two other significant religions emerged about the same time in southeast Asia. Both Buddhism’s four Universal Virtues and Holy Eight-fold Path promote a type of virtue in one’s treatment of others, transcendence, understanding, thinking, speech, action, work, mindfulness, and concentration (Fowler, 1999). Hinduism teaches a creator, an eternal self through reincarnation, and personal virtues exhibited through a caste system (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all taught that living well (eudaimonia) is achieved through virtue or moral excellence (Aristotle, 1953;
Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Judaism (Deuteronomy 6: 4; Leviticus 19:18), Christianity (Matthew 7:12; John 13:34, 35), and Islam (Qur'an 3:133, 134; 41:34, 35) teach that “abundant life” (John 10:10) begins with one's love of God that is expressed in worship and obedience toward Him that is best expressed through kindness toward others.
More specifically, Jewish holy scriptures emphasized “righteousness” or doing what is right as of first importance (Genesis 15:6; Psalms 23:3; 45:7; 89:14). Jesus used
this term but affirmed that love (Greek agape’) for God and others was the primary virtue (John 13:34, 35). The apostle Peter listed six additional attributes Christians should add to their faith: Goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, and kindness (2 Peter 1:5-8).
The Christian apostle Paul (5-66 AD) was a brilliant Jewish rabbi who converted to Christianity and wrote 13 of the 27 New Testament books (Keener, 1995). Paul had both a brief and a longer list of character traits: Three pre-eminent traits (Faith, hope, and love, naming love the greatest; I Corinthians 13:13) and nine “fruit of the Spirit” [Love (agape), joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control; Galatians 5:22, 23]. The Christian philosopher/priest Aquinas (tenth century AD) integrated Plato’s four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance) with Paul’s three theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity or love; 1 Corinthians 13:13) (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Roos, 1965).
These religions and the Greek philosophers represent the primary sources of thought in the ancient world. They articulate the most credible, valid understanding of virtue available (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Historical concepts of character. Over the years, the definition of virtue seemed
to change. In the later Middle Ages, natural law theorists such as Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) applied the Stoic's rational philosophy to develop moral law. In this system, character was defined by right action based on rational thinking. Immanuel Kant and moral philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries disagreed. Kant said morality had both a
domain of justice/law and of ethics/virtue (Homiak, 2011).
(Hume 1902, p. 330). Hume claimed the knowledge of morals is the one science in which the ancients are not surpassed by the moderns (Hume 1902). Some contemporary writers agree that, despite all modernity's progress in science and technology,
contemporary morality, ethics, and character have not kept pace (Bonevac, 2001; White, 2009).
Hume also advocated a morality accepted as one's duty to society but also virtue as a source of well-being (Homiak, 2011). Hume seems to be the first to state that character strength is the source of individual's view of self or self-esteem:
“[W]hatever we call heroic virtue, and admire under the character of greatness and elevation of mind, is either nothing but a steady and well-established pride and self-esteem, or partakes largely of that passion. Courage . . . and all the other shining virtues of that kind, have plainly a strong mixture of self-esteem in them, and derive a great part of their merit from that origin” (Hume, 1978, pp. 599– 600).
Benjamin Franklin wrote much in the eighteenth century about character,
including a catalog of virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The Puritans took adherence to virtue to such a degree that a new word developed to describe extreme moral
adherence: Puritanical (McClellan, 1999).
Seligman writes, “In the nineteenth century, politics, morality, and psychology were all about character...” (2011, p. 103) The event that changed that, he believes, was the 1886 Haymarket Square riot in Chicago. “Riding the coattails of this protest was a very big idea... that it was not bad character but a malignant environment that created crime… ( It was called) Determinism” (2011, p. 104).
The field of personality developed within psychology during the 20th century and
maintained character’s categorization using traits. Its lexical approach began with the 18,000 trait terms in the English language identified by Allport and Odbert (1936). In their work, they deliberately excluded ‘‘moral’’ trait terms from their original list. By taking this approach, they effectively excluded morality from personality theory (Allport and Odbert, 1936; Cawley, Martin, & Johnson, 2000; McCrae & Costa, 2003; Park & Peterson, 2006b, 2007; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Moral character traits thus have never been incorporated into the Big Five measures (of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness; Baumrind, 1998; Cawley, Martin, & Johnson, 2000; Park & Peterson, 2006b, 2007).
Though some organizations were not deterred (e.g., Boy Scouts of America), the course of philosophy, psychology, education, sociology, anthropology, political science, and even elements of theology retreated from an emphasis on virtue and created “social science.” Seligman defines this as “a science that would demonstrate that environment, rather than character or heredity, is a better explanation of what people do” (2011, p. 104).
Despite psychology’s retreat from character, some traditions have contributed to the understanding of character. Peterson and Seligman cite the major contributors as Thorndike, Erikson, Maslow, Greenberger and colleagues, Jahoda, Ryff and colleagues, aspects of performance character in the Big Five personality traits, Kohlberg, Valliant, Schwartz and colleagues, Evolutionary Psychology, and resilience research (2004).
Modern concepts of character. In 1958, some began to challenge determinism.
utilitarianism – that the foundation for morality isn't environment or duty and obligation but what promotes human flourishing. John Rawls' discussions in 1971 on self-respect led other philosophers “to explore the psychological foundations of virtue and the [positive] contributions made by friendship, family, community, and meaningful work to good moral character” (Homiak, 2011). Philosophy returned to discussions of values and virtue.
Character education. Various religious (Search Institute), service (Boy Scouts;
Boys Club, now Boys and Girls Club), and educational (Exeter Academy) organizations had emphasized character throughout their histories (Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Other fields of study, organizations, and Citizens responded in the 1990's. Private foundations such as the Templeton Foundation contributed millions of dollars to the cause (Berkowitz & Bier, 2006; CEP, 2010; JTF, 2013). Individuals and corporations became involved. The US Congress funded the Department of Education to pursue character training (USDE, 2007). Organizations were started to promote character education, the most encompassing of which is the Character Education Partnership (CEP) with its 40 member organizations (CEP, 2010; Characterplus, 2013; Josephson Institute, 2009). Higher education got involved with professors like Tom Lickona (State
University of New York, Cortland) and Marvin Berkowitz, sitting in perhaps the only endowed university chair of CE. The character movement was born and Character
Education (CE) became a field of study (Josephson, 2011; Lickona, 2004; Williams, 2000). Rather than remaining a cohesive, collaborating field, some seemed to take a proprietary approach to character training. Two of the most prominent examples are the Josephson Institute (JI, 2009) and the Center for Academic, Social and Emotional
Learning (CASEL, 2012). JI, a non-profit financed by Michael Josephson, started
Character Counts and became arguably the best-known character organization
(Josephson, 2009). A group of psychologists brought therapy and psychological research into schools and began CASEL (CASEL, 2012). Their efforts have helped many schools embrace a caring, effective approach to students’ psychological needs.
JI and CASEL have served many schools and organizations by providing materials and expertise but arguably could have been of greater service with a more inclusive, collaborative approach (Maurice Elias, personal correspondence, April 12, 2013). Despite the work of CEP to include all character organizations and theories, homogeneity and collaboration are rare.
Some psychologists (Daniel Goleman, Paul Ekman, Albert Bandura, Marvin Berkowitz, G.W. Albee, Sheldon Cohen, etc.) became involved in character-related work. Certain psychological or educational researchers (William Huitt, Clete Bulach, Tom Lickona) developed constructs of character that are based on insight and experience but have not been validated (Bulach, 1996; Huitt, personal correspondence, November, 2011; Lickona, 2004; Lickona & Davidson, 2005).
Search Institute and cohorts have combined sociological, educational, and psychological concepts to create Positive Youth Development (PYD; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Lerner et al., 2005; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2001; Scales & Leffert, 2004). Their broad construct includes twenty external and twenty internal assets. The latter contains many items that could be termed character traits.
Positive Psychology. Mentioned above was the observation that most
wellbeing. In the pre-dawn of the new millennium, Martin Seligman and his cohorts changed that. Elected president of the American Psychological Association 1997-2000, Seligman called his profession to become “as focused on strength as on weakness, as interested in building the best things in life as in repairing the worst, and as concerned with fulfilling the lives of normal people as with healing the wounds of the distressed” (Seligman, 2002, p. 32). He called this new approach “Positive Psychology” (PP).
Seligman and his team of psychologists and psychiatrists searched philosophy, religion, cultures, and thinkers throughout history and found the key to happiness universally had been character. Seligman and Christopher Peterson edited the definitive handbook of PP and classified its salient features in Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV; 2004): “The classification of strengths presented in this book is intended to
reclaim the study of character and virtue as legitimate topics of psychological inquiry and informed societal discourse” (p. 3).
The emergence of Positive Psychology since 2000 has produced much research on character and character-related subjects. Peterson says the contribution of PP is “to provide an umbrella term for what have been isolated lines of theory and research and to make the self-conscious argument that what makes life worth living deserves its own field of inquiry within psychology...” (Peterson, 2006, p. 16). PP is “the science of good character” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 9) and is the first attempt at classifying the 18,000 words in the English language that express virtue.
PP's initial team of researchers developed a hierarchical classification based on historical research that could advance understanding, awareness, and expression of character. Three “conceptual levels” are virtues, character strengths, and situational
themes (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, pp.13, 14).
They list 6 core virtues “that must all be present … for an individual to be deemed of good character” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 13): wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. These were gathered from classical Greek and Christian writings but were confirmed by Chinese, southeast Asian, and Indian religions (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). These virtues contain 24 character strengths that are the conclusion of an extensive process by multiple psychologists, psychiatrists, and
researchers. They first reviewed dozens of character inventories. Then they applied 10 criteria for a strength: Fulfilling, morally valued, do not diminish other strengths; has no felicitous opposites; trait-like; distinctive; paragons and prodigies can be found; selective absence in some people; institutions/rituals are involved (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, pp.16-28).
Only 24 traits made the list. Others fell into categories of synonyms,
sub-strengths, or situational themes. The latter became PP's third level of character defined as “habits that lead people to manifest given character strengths in given situations”
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 14).
In the decade since Peterson & Seligman’s publication of Character Strengths
and Virtues (2004), research on the 24 has increased dramatically (Seligman, 2011). The
VIA website contains an extensive bibliography of the primary studies that provide multiple examples of character’s efficacy. Those regarding adolescents were significant.
1. Weber & Ruch’s (2012) study indicated that character strengths of the mind (e.g., self-regulation, perseverance, love of learning) were predictive of school success.
2. Shoshani & Slone’s (2012) longitudinal study of adolescent’ transition to middle school found intellectual and temperance strengths predicted school performance and achievement, interpersonal strengths related to school social functioning, and temperance and transcendence strengths predicted well-being.
3. Proctor et al. (2011) divided 319 adolescent students between the ages of 12-14 into two groups in which 2/3 received character strengths-builder activities and strengths challenges within the school curriculum (called Strengths Gym) while the rest served as a control group. Those who participated in strengths exercises experienced increase in life satisfaction compared to the control group.
4. Gillham and cohorts found among high school students that other-oriented strengths (e.g., kindness, teamwork) predicted fewer depression symptoms while transcendence strengths (e.g., spirituality) predicted greater life satisfaction (Gillham et al., 2011).
5. Seligman et al. (2009) evaluated a positive education program featuring character strengths assessment and intervention. It increased levels of curiosity, love of learning, and creativity, improved school skills, and increased enjoyment and engagement in school.
6. In a study of adolescents’ character strengths and career/vocational interests, intellectual strengths were related to investigative and artistic career interests, transcendence and other-oriented strengths were related to social career interests, and leadership strengths were Associated with enterprising career interests (Proyer, Sidler, Weber, & Ruch, 2012).
Collectively these studies affirm that character strength training is beneficial to adolescent social, emotional, academic, and vocational development. According to numerous authorities, it is a primary intervention available to parents, educators, psychologists, and all youth workers (Baumeister, 2012; Berkowitz & Bier, 2006;
Davidson & Lickona, 2005; Lickona, 1991; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Park & Peterson, 2009; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009; USDE, 2007).
PP is the singular theory of character with an explicit, detailed conceptualization and system of classification (They stop short of calling it a taxonomy; Peterson & Seligman, 2004, pp. 11-14).
CE vs. PP. How do these two emerging fields, both focused on character, connect and collaborate? To date, it seems CE and PP have barely noticed each other, scarcely connected, and rarely collaborated. Despite Berkowitz’s inclusion as the
contributor with S. Sherblom of CSV’s chapter on Fairness, CE is profoundly unaffected by PP. This can be observed by 1) the absence of any mention of PP in a search of prominent CE websites such as CEP’s (CEP, 2013) and Characterplus (Characterplus, 2012) and 2) the exclusion of PP as a consideration or contributing factor in CE literature. For an example of the latter, Nucci and Narvaez edited a significant CE book in 2008,
Handbook of Moral and Character Education. None of its 30 chapter titles mentions
Positive Psychology and its theory, research, and potential to inform CE is omitted. The one exception is Lickona & Davidson (2005) who credit as influencing their thinking prominent Positive Psychologists Seligman, Peterson, C.R. Snyder, and
Csikszentmihalyi. PP conceptualization of and research regarding character otherwise do not appear to have significantly impacted CE researchers.
The slight is somewhat mutual. Peterson & Seligman (2004) mention CE and Dr. Marvin Berkowitz in their otherwise comprehensive chapter “Previous Classifications of Character Strengths” (pp. 53-92). CE had a head start on Positive Education, the
application of PP to education (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). Consequently, CE is mentioned in numerous PP writings though often in a critical manner (Park & Peterson, 2009; Peterson, 2007). Gilman, Heubner & Furlong’s (2009) edited volume Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools has no input from character educators and its contributors rarely cite them.
It seems some PP adherents see CE as “yesterday’s news” on character. For example, Kristján Kristjánsson states that PP teaches “…we do not need the moralized values of character education (non-empirically based, anti-intellectual, old-fashioned, apocalyptic, nostalgic)” (Kristjánsson, 2013).
Kristjánsson has a point though not as definitive as he asserts. Positive
psychologists have clearly avoided mention of morality or notions of right and wrong. A search for scholarly articles using the terms “moral” and “Positive Psychology” produced one article (Haidt, 2003). Park & Peterson made an exception in noting that optimal human development requires both competence and moral character (2006b). They quote Baumrind (1998, p. 13), “It takes virtuous character to will the good, and competence to do good well.”
Insight into the thinking behind the mutual CE/PP slight could be a case of categorical myopia: Both are so focused on their own group that related groups are ignored. Another possibility may be the classic “sibling rivalry” between two closely-related, competitive fields: Education (represented by CE) and psychology (represented
by PP). Another partial reason could be PP’s directional shift observed in Seligman’s latest book Flourish (2011). Its publication marked the unofficial beginning of what this paper calls PP 2.0.
Positive Psychology 2.0. What can now legitimately be called a movement in the field of psychology, or what Seligman calls “a tectonic upheaval,” developed
significantly in 7 years since publishing CSV (Seligman, 2011, p. 1). He states that his early articulation of PP in his book Authentic Happiness (2001) involved Happiness Theory. The theory had three elements: positive emotion (feelings: pleasure, warmth, comfort), engagement (flow: loss of self-consciousness during an absorbing activity), and meaning (serving something bigger than self). The goal of Happiness Theory was life satisfaction: How satisfied one felt due to experiencing these three elements (Seligman, 2011).
In Flourish, Seligman expands his former happiness theory in his new Well-Being Theory. The theory’s goal is to promote flourishing by increasing these five elements in one's life: Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA) (Seligman, 2011). Seligman makes the “unguarded promises” that PP will make one happier, increase one's well-being, and help one flourish (Seligman, 2011, pp.1, 2).
Character is a significant theme in the book. In discussing Positive Education, he states that the goal of the Strath Haven PP curriculum was to “build character strengths, relationships, and meaning…” (Seligman, 2011, p. 83).
Seligman begins Flourish's Part 2, “Ways to Flourish,” with a chapter entitled “GRIT, Character, and Achievement: A New Theory of Intelligence.” Here he articulates
a new appeal to psychology and humankind to move beyond victimization and back to personal responsibility and personal character. He appeals to education to recognize the equation “achievement = skill x effort” where skill is synonymous with intelligence and talent and effort equals character. Of particular value are the character strengths
regarding a form of self-discipline he calls grit which combines persistence with passion to achieve. Although he does not say so, logically GRIT and character correlate with the
“Achievement” portion of PERMA (Seligman, 2011). Then Seligman launches a discussion of his work in developing the Army's
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Training and, to combat PTSD, Master Resiliency Training. Both are full of character training but are never explicitly correlated with PERMA (Seligman, 2011).
When Seligman’s summarizes Well-Being Theory, character is noticeably absent. This is curious considering (a) the significance of virtue and character in the two
primary/seminal PP texts: CSV and Authentic Happiness; and (b) the strong Citing of character in two major portions of Flourish. Another observation is that the focus of character in Flourish seems to be on performance character strengths such as self-regulation and perseverance rather than moral character such as kindness and love (Davidson & Lickona, 2005; Seligman, 2011).
While he obviously promotes character strength and growth in his most recent publication (2011, pp. 83, 103-107, 113-125, 168, 172), the term “character” is rarely used by other Positive Psychologists excepting Chris Peterson (Peterson, 2006; Peterson et al., 2008). In an email exchange May 19, 2011, I asked about the place of character in PERMA and the apparent focus on performance character rather than moral character.
Seligman, known for his rapid, one-line email responses, said Chris Peterson is “more partial to prescription [i.e. tell people what they should do or how they should act] than I am” (Chris Peterson died October 9, 2012).
As the field has developed, PP could appear to have moved away from its earlier emphasis on virtue and character to a less “prescriptive” focus on well-being (Seligman, personal correspondence, May 19, 2011). When asked in a follow-up email if this statement is true, Seligman replied, “The happy does not equal the good which does not equal the true. PERMA describes what people choose to do. It does not tell people what they should do.”
This could indicate an affirmative answer by showing Seligman’s belief that discussions of moral character are often “prescriptive”. Another possibility is that PP will continue to discuss “what people choose to do” morally without assigning a value to the behavior. PP research often reports levels of perceived well-being by those choosing moral acts such as kindness and honesty as compared to those who do not. If this interpretation of Seligman is accurate, PP through PERMA seems not to be changing direction but allowing character research data to prescribe the most beneficial moral behavior.
Seligman provides support for this interpretation. In a May 3, 2014 email, he was asked about the connection between two conceptual statements. Character Strengths and
Virtues states that PP is "the science of good character" (p.9) yet Seligman asserts in Flourish that, "Here then is well-being theory: well-being is a construct: and well-being,
not happiness, is the topic of PP." He was asked, “How do these two statements correlate and/or converge?” He replied, “If you want to know about WB (well-being), it helps to
know about character.” Combined with his Well-Being Theory, this indicates character strengths remain an important aspect of PP and PERMA. Without directly involving moral character, it seems Seligman is3 leading PP the direction Allport and Odbert (1936) led personality theory: Toward an amoral concept.
PERMA seems a solid, potentially brilliant theory of well-being save 1) its failure to integrate explicitly its theory with PP as a “science of character” and 2) its moral sterilization. Given Seligman’s history of revising and correcting his theories based on research and feedback he values, future conceptualization of this emerging field may correct these omissions.
PP has produced far more innovation and research toward a character construct than any other group. The PP listserve (address list that allows members to email the entire group) buzzes daily with related research and conceptual discussions ([email protected]). Despite PP founders and adherents' reticence to endorse morality or posit truth, the central role of character in their theory and its effectiveness in interventions evidenced by PP research may be viewed as prescriptive. That is, PP explains character strength use and its efficacy for well-being. By this, they promote and therefore prescribe character.
In summary, PP is an exciting new field that should be carefully watched by character educators. Though PP researchers are energetic and innovative, the field is in its pre-adolescence (Brdr & Kashdan, 2010; Seligman, 2011). Perhaps PP 3.0 will
address the place of morality in PP by integrating Well-Being Theory with the “science of character’ (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.9).
Traits or strengths? Those involved in Character Education seemed to prefer the terms “virtues” or “character traits” for the various psychological tendencies comprising character (Berkowitz & Bier, 2006; Lickona, 2000, 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2007). Seligman and Peterson borrowed the term “strengths” from the work of Donald Clifton and others to create the concept of “character strengths” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2007). Perhaps the two fields can dialogue regarding the best term and seek consensus. This study will use both terms interchangeably.
Character Education’s lack of a taxonomy. The current CE movement has not collaboratively constructed a taxonomy of character. When one thinks of school subjects, what comes to mind are math, communication arts, science, performing arts, and social studies. These subjects have clear definitions, a cohesive, established body of theory, and have been taught comprehensively in a developmentally-appropriate manner for
generations. CE does not enjoy these benefits. Many question the appropriateness and even the legality of teaching morality in public schools (Howard, Berkowitz, &
Schaeffer, 2004; Milson, 2003; Nucci, 2008; USDE, 2007; Vessels & Huitt, 2005; White, 2009; Williams, 2000). Some character theorists seem to endorse only their own
constructs and resist addressing or incorporating input from others (CASEL, 2012; Josephson, 2011; Narvaez & Nucci, 2008). The CE field remains fractured and
contentious (Howard, Berkowitz & Schaeffer, 2004). This complicates and politicizes an already-difficult task.
Measuring Character. Howard, Berkowitz, and Schaeffer (2004) call the
can determine CE program effectiveness based on observable outcomes such as academic progress, prosocial testing, school culture, and school-wide indicators of student behavior (Battistich, 2008; Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000; Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; USDE, 2007).
Federal studies of CE programs have been less than supportive of their efficacy (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Person,
Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009; SCDRC, 2010). The two most recent and extensive of these may be primarily responsible for CE being defunded by the US government (SCDRC, 2010). One specifically asked for additional components of evaluation requiring 1) a conceptual basis including a unified character taxonomy with 2) criteria to know what must be measured; and 3) quantitative assessment tools to measure both character strength and growth.
To date, only the first of these three requirements is available in the field of CE and it is questionable if they are present in related fields of PP (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009) and Positive Youth Development (Lerner et al., 2005).
Creating these essentials would contribute to CE unraveling its evaluative tangle and possibly promote collaboration between these three fields (Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009; USDE, 2007).
Existing quantitative measures of student outcomes have not seemed to impress researchers. Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh (2011) question the quality of available statistical measures of student outcomes:
“There is considerable skepticism about the quality of positive measures among statisticians, economists, and other quantitatively oriented researchers who view measures of positive youth development as ‘squishy’ or ‘soft.’ Hard data on the psychometric properties of scales, indices, and items are needed to convince survey directors that positive measures of well-being can be rigorously measured and collected” (pp. 428, 429).
At least program evaluation using some form of student outcome measures is possible. Educators can assess all-school outcomes of effective CE such as academic progress, social emotional health, and compliance to school behavioral norms (Battistich, 2008; Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000; Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012).
Perhaps the more vexing knot for CE is the fact that individual student character development is not being tested, scored, or reported (Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011). In the past, students received some score of classroom “deportment” or behavior on their report card (Damon, 1988; McClellan, 1999; Wynne, 1986). This is no longer widely used today in primary education and is almost non-existent in secondary education (USDE, 2007).
While program evaluation offers a general indication of students’ collective culture or school climate, it cannot measure individual student character or specific strengths. This inability affects CE in numerous ways. First, it is not good pedagogy (McClellan, 1999) and does not encourage intrinsic or autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Grades for math, science, or language arts are not collective where
Teachers help individual students who struggle with a certain concept as evidenced by their test outcomes. Student learning can also be motivated by individual grading (Huitt, 2011; Huitt, Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009). Logically, character development can be similarly encouraged if character can be individually measured (Gilman, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2000; Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012).
All-school indicators of character show nothing of individual development or specific areas of training needed. Even measuring an individual student’s broad behavioral indicators does not de facto measure that student’s character, determine developmental progress in character, or identify their character strengths and weaknesses and thus differentiate instruction to address deficits (Howard, Berkowitz, & Schaeffer, 2004; Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Huitt, Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009; McClellan, 1999; WWC, 2006). If students are to develop in character, CE must discover their developmental needs through individual character measurement.
Second, not testing individual student character means that CE has less differentiated instruction (DI). DI is a teaching theory based on the premise that
instructional approaches should vary and be adapted in relation to individual and diverse students in classrooms (Hall, 2002; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). DI at its most basic level is when a school provides students personalized avenues of learning despite students’ varying developmental levels. Motivated districts and schools with conscientious teachers who are trained in CE can infuse CE into the academic curriculum (Berkowitz & Bier, 2006; Huitt, Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009; Milson, 2003; WWC, 2006). However such training is non-existent in educational certification requirements (Narvaez & Lapsley, in press; Nucci, 2008).
When schools that emphasize and infuse CE are asked what effect their CE initiative has on individual character, overall trait development, or DI, answers are available: Greater student cooperation, improved attitude and climate, use of skills such as conflict resolution, etc. A more specific, evidence-based answer could be provided by a taxonomy and a measure by which individual student development could be measured. Such tools could help differentiate instruction and inform teachers of what lessons students need to cover the full spectrum of comprehensive CE (Huitt, Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009). Administrators and teachers could determine in what specific traits their students need training (Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009).
The third effect of schools’ inability to quantify character growth regards the practicality of evaluation. When testing is complex, it is less frequently and reliably accomplished. Administrators are busy and have many state and federal reporting requirements, few or none of which involve testing character. If they are to measure student character, the method needs to be as painless as possible. A brief, quantitative measure would fill this need.
The fourth effect regards money. Today more than ever, federal and private funding for education is dependent on evidence of effectiveness through qualitative research data (Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2011; USDE, 2007, 2012, 2013a, 2013b). To be granted again a primary presence in US education and its funding, CE must find a means of defining its content and evaluating student achievement (Howard, Berkowitz, & Schaeffer, 2004; Huitt, Huitt, Monetti, & Hummel, 2009; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009; Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009).
measure, it appears CE evaluation and assessment has an epic journey ahead. Two extensive US Department of Education reports address this. In 2007, the USDE joined with the Character Education Partnership and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development to develop “Mobilizing for Evidence-Based Character Education (USDE, 2007). Their rationale was that, “Conducting scientifically rigorous evaluations of character education interventions is complex. The nature of character education compounds the typical challenges of evaluation in particular ways” (p. 1). The first reason they cited was “lack of precedence,” meaning that few rigorous evaluations have been done (p. 1). Their definition of scientific evaluation said it “…relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable data” (p. 4).
A December 2009 US Department of Education report, “Survey of Outcomes Measurement in Research on Character Education Programs” (SOMRCEP), “...
systematically examines the outcomes that were measured in evaluations of a delimited set of character education programs and the research tools used for measuring the targeted outcomes” (Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009, p. xv). The authors concluded,
“The multi-faceted nature of character development and many possible ways of conceptualizing it, the large and growing number of school-based programs to promote character development, and the relative newness of efforts to evaluate character education programs using rigorous research methods all combine to make the selection or development of measures relevant to the evaluation of these programs especially challenging” (Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009, p. xvi).
The report's “... assessment of the characteristics of the scaled measures revealed two central themes.” The second was, “Reporting of psychometric properties of
character education outcome measures is not consistent” (Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009, p. xvii; italic added). Of the 95 scaled measures, no internal reliability statistics were reported for 33, 5 produced less than .70 reliability, and 27 had mixed reliability across contexts. Only 30 of the 95 measures or less than a third had reliability over .70 (the standard of acceptable reliability; Standards, 1985). Validity of measures, the primary requirement of a good measure (Standards, 1985), was addressed less often than reliability with just 5 of the 36 programs selected providing validity statistics (Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009).
Why is this? One possibility mentioned was the evaluators lack training in proper research tools and procedure. Another possibility emerges from SOMRCEP's first theme:
“Among the 95 scales that researchers applied in the studies reviewed here, 46 were developed for the study under review. An additional 17 were adapted from existing measures; and 32 were available 'off the shelf,' having been developed and published through other research. Among this last category, 6 scales were employed in research on more than one of the programs under review” (Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus & Malone, 2009; p. xvi).
In reviewing the 32 scales from published research listed in this document, only one specifically measured character: The Character Development Survey (CDS, Johns, 1997). The measure proved reliable in its initial use by its author but had no validation, the “Gold Standard of test evaluation” (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995, p. 239). In addition, CDS measures only three strengths: kindness/caring, respect/responsibility, and
